| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
We don't need the dependencies for obvious reasons and we don't need the
candidate version either, so building a pkgDepCache is wasted effort,
which we can stop doing now that build-dep cleared the path.
|
|
The later just calls the earlier, but the later needs the fullblown
dependency cache to be initialized, which is a very costly operation and
isn't done anymore that early in the run as we would need to throw away
and rebuild it again after we got all the information about source pkgs.
As we end up with a nullptr for the pkgDepCache, we use a slightly
longer calling convention to make sure that we use the pkgCache
directly, avoiding nullptr induced segfaults and costly operations.
Git-Dch: Ignore
Reported-By: Balint Reczey <balint@balintreczey.hu>
|
|
In 321213f0dcdcdaab04e01663e7a047b261400c9c Andreas Cadhalpun corrected
the incorrect overriding of earlier better-fitting results with later
(semi-)matches – but that broke the case in which packages are in multiple
releases in the same version (and the user has both releases configured).
Closes: 812497
|
|
build-dep was implemented by parsing the build-dependencies of a package
and figuring out which packages to install/remove based on this. That
means that for the first level of dependencies build-dep was
implementing its very own resolver with all the benefits (aka: bugs)
this gives us for not using the existing resolver for all levels.
Making this work involves generating a dummy binary package with fitting
Depends and Conflicts and as we can't create them out of thin air the
cache generation needs to be involved so we end up writing a Packages
file which we want to parse – after we have parsed the other Packages
files already. With .dsc/.deb files we could add them before we started
parsing anything.
With a bit of care we can avoid generating too much data we have to
throw away again (as many parts assume that e.g. the count of packages
doesn't change midair), so that on a speed front there shouldn't be
much of a difference, but output can be slightly confusing as if we have
a completely valid cache on disk the "Reading package lists... Done" is
printed two times – but apt is pretty quick about it in that case.
Closes: #137560, #444930, #489911, #583914, #728317, #812173
|
|
Git-Dch: Ignore
|
|
Git-Dch: Ignore
|
|
Otherwise a user is subject to unexpected content-injection depending on
which directory she happens to start apt in. This also cleans up the code
requiring less implementation details in build-dep which is always good.
Technically, this is an ABI break as we override virtual methods, but
that they weren't overridden was a mistake resulting in pure classes,
which shouldn't be pure, so they were unusable – and as they are new in
1.1 nobody is using them yet (and hopefully ever as they are borderline
implementation details).
Closes: 806693
|
|
There is no need to check configured build-essentials for each package,
doing it once at the start ought to be enough.
Git-Dch: Ignore
|
|
Lets do this non-behaviour change before we modify the source for real
as the reflow and moving would otherwise hide all the interesting changes.
Git-Dch: Ignore
|
|
The relevant testcases are in test/integration/test-apt-get-source.
There is a test for #731853 that is supposed to "ensure that apt will
pick the higher version number" of 0.0.1 (stable) and 0.1 (stable).
However, this works by pure chance, as simply reversing the order
of the two insertsource lines makes the test fail.
So #731853 isn't really fixed, yet.
Actually, that's related to the problem I reported, as the underlying
issue for both is the same:
In the FindSrc function apt chooses a new 'best hit', if either
* there is a target release and it matches the release of the package,
* or the version of the package is higher than the last best hit.
Consider having 1.0 (stable), 2.0 (unstable) and 1.5 (unstable),
in this order.
Looking for the version in stable, apt first selects 1.0, because the
release matches the target release, but then subsequently selects 2.0,
because the version is higher.
Looking for the version in unstable, apt first selects 2.0, because the
release matches the target release, but then subsequently selects 1.5,
because the release also matches the target release.
The correct way would be to choose a new 'best hit', if either
* there is a target release and it matches the release of the package,
* or there is no target release
and the version is higher than the last best hit.
Closes: 746412
Mail-Reference: <565A604B.7090104@googlemail.com>
Mail-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2015/11/msg00470.html
|
|
This was discussed a while ago on #debian-apt and now that I see myself
making this mistake lets bite the bullet and fix it in the easy way out
version: Using a new name which fits with a similar named setter and
deprecate the old method instead of 'hostily' changing API.
Closes: #803471
|
|
apt is supposed to be a user-friendly interface, so while these commands
are usually poweruser material and therefore do not need to be shown in
general introduction manpages/help messages its of no use to not allow
users to use them.
This includes clean, autoclean, build-dep, source, download, changelog,
depends, rdepends and showsrc – it doesn't include more non-interactive
commands like dump or xvcg as those are usually used by scripts if at
all.
Closes: 778234, 780700, 781237
|
